POPATBHAI KARSHANBHAI VIRASH vs RAMESHBHAI BECHARBHAI SARVAIYA Advocate - R B GOHIL — 1096/2024

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Uncontested--JUDGEMENT on 08th April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN070026382024

Case disposedSub Stage

Filing Number

1096/2024

Filing Date

22-08-2024

Registration No

1096/2024

Registration Date

22-08-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA

Judge

3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

08th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--JUDGEMENT

Acts & Sections

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

POPATBHAI KARSHANBHAI VIRASH

Adv. J M GOHIL

Respondent(s)

RAMESHBHAI BECHARBHAI SARVAIYA Advocate - R B GOHIL

Hearing History

Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

08-04-2026

Disposed

07-04-2026

EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT

02-04-2026

EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT

30-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT

25-03-2026

EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT

Final Orders / Judgements

08-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: 1096/2024 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pailitana, allowed the accused Rameshbhai Becharbhai Sarvaiya's application for compounding of the cheque bounce offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The accused had deposited the full cheque amount of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh rupees) in court before recording his defense evidence, and the complainant accepted the payment. Applying Supreme Court guidelines, the court permitted compounding without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused. The complainant was ordered to withdraw the deposited amount within 30 days, with liability for non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 1096/2024 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pailitana, allowed the accused Rameshbhai Becharbhai Sarvaiya's application for compounding of the cheque bounce offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The accused had deposited the full cheque amount of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh rupees) in court before recording his defense evidence, and the complainant accepted the payment. Applying Supreme Court guidelines, the court permitted compounding without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused. The complainant was ordered to withdraw the deposited amount within 30 days, with liability for non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case